What should've the slavery civic done, instead of what it does now?

[TheMeInTeam]

You may have the causality of slavery flipped there. It would make a lot more sense with more labor available.

Again, if it could be meaningfully changed without completely distorting the balance of Civ, maybe I'd be warmer to the idea. Otherwise, the game would have to be re-done in terms of difficulties, and maybe even things like tile yields.

 

[AmazonQueen]

CTP had quite a good slavery system (although I'd do away with the special Slaver unit).
You had a chance of capturing units which were then added to your nearest cities POP.
Slave POP required only 1 food and didn't count towards unhappiness but there was a chance of revolt if you didn't have sufficient garrision troops IIRC.

If a system like that was reintroduced I'd also like to see the option of enslaving POP when cities are razed. Not sure what proportion of a cities POP should become slaves, maybe 25% with a minimum of 1.

I wouldn't say slavery was inefficient. It allowed small elites to control large populations and was successful enough to be present in almost all developed societies until the last 2centuries.

 

[Iranon]

It was successful enough in the last century as well - Germany and the Soviet Union practically depended on forced labour during WW2; the western allies also used unfree labour as part of war reparations.

On the whole, it worked as described within the game - the ability to get major projects done quickly, with an associated death toll.

 

[frekk]

You may have the causality of slavery flipped there. It would make a lot more sense with more labor available.

I don't know which is the cart and which is the horse, frankly. Slave labour was crucial to building irrigation, for instance, and from what we know that's how the first urban centres (in Mesopotamia), supported by mass agriculture, got started. Prior to that, the pool of available labour couldn't have been that large.

Free producers who own land or the tools of their trade (ie pre-industrial, before the advent of mass wage employment) just didn't engage in collective labour. They tended to sell their products directly, not their labour, so they did not often come together in large numbers - much less organize themselves to work under an overarching plan. Slavery, like the wage labour system, is a mode of production and a means of organizing collective labour - something the middle ages largely lacked, which consequently made it difficult to build the infrastructure (irrigation, aqueducts, sanitation systems) necessary to support large urban populations.

IMO, the problem doesn't rest with slavery as such, the problem in the game rests with serfdom. There are good reasons to switch from slavery to the caste system or emancipation, but little incentive to drop slavery for serfdom. And the benefit you do get, historically, makes no sense at all - the wilderness crept back in during the middle ages, it was not a period in which agriculture was vastly extended or road networks built. The chief benefit of serfdom was that it didn't require much in the way of central authority; everything was paid for, produced, and maintained at a very local level, including not just wares, foodstuffs, etc but also things like fortifications and military power.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't know which is the cart and which is the horse, frankly. Slave labour was crucial to building irrigation, for instance, and from what we know that's how the first urban centres (in Mesopotamia), supported by mass agriculture, got started. Prior to that, the pool of available labour couldn't have been that large.

Free producers who own land or the tools of their trade (ie pre-industrial, before the advent of mass wage employment) just didn't engage in collective labour. They tended to sell their products directly, not their labour, so they did not often come together in large numbers - much less organize themselves to work under an overarching plan. Slavery, like the wage labour system, is a mode of production and a means of organizing collective labour - something the middle ages largely lacked, which consequently made it difficult to build the infrastructure (irrigation, aqueducts, sanitation systems) necessary to support large urban populations.

IMO, the problem doesn't rest with slavery as such, the problem in the game rests with serfdom. There are good reasons to switch from slavery to the caste system or emancipation, but little incentive to drop slavery for serfdom. And the benefit you do get, historically, makes no sense at all - the wilderness crept back in during the middle ages, it was not a period in which agriculture was vastly extended or road networks built. The chief benefit of serfdom was that it didn't require much in the way of central authority; everything was paid for, produced, and maintained at a very local level, including not just wares, foodstuffs, etc but also things like fortifications and military power.

Serfdom didn't end until a lot later than the middle ages. In much of Europe not until the mid-19th century (1848 in Hungary, 1861 in Russia). The main advantage of serfdom was a tied labour force for large landowners.

 

[da dick]

i thought feudal age in europe had slower pop growth 'cause they were always fighting each other, and they lost most of their ancestor's knowledge in the dark ages(after the fall of the romans).

 

[Genv [FP]]

Romans > The entire span of the middle ages

 

[criminiminal]

Don't kid yourself - in the ancient world, that's exactly what it was. Name a powerful ancient empire that didn't practice slavery. Greece? Rome? Egypt? The advanced civilizations of the Americas (Aztec, Inca, etc), even, are distinguished from their tribal neighbours in that they all practiced slavery on a huge scale (and used it to build an abundance of massive stone structures). All of them utilized vast numbers of slaves. Two-thirds of Athens population, for instance, were slaves. In many parts of Rome, including the city itself, the number was about one-third. This translated to a massive production capacity for all these groups because they could mobilize huge labour forces directed towards planned projects. These people may have been equally productive had they been free, but it would be impossible to mobilize them in the same way. They'd be producing trinkets and tools and art, not roads and walls and pyramids.



There were many skilled slaves. Rome had slaves who were artisans of all sorts - blacksmiths, skilled craftsmen, etc. Any debtor became a slave, so there was no shortage of skilled slaves. Some even served as accountants and scribes.



Absolutely they did! Rome enslaved a huge portion of its own population through debt, for instance. Some slaves came from conquest but the majority were simply debtors, or children who had been sold into slavery.



Those did not make up the majority of the slave population in many cases - there are not enough of those people to account for the massive numbers of slaves in ancient societies like Greece or Rome. Slaves included skilled artisans (blacksmiths, carpenters etc), farmers, and even minor officials - whoever had fallen into debt, came afoul of the law, etc - productive people. In Egypt, everyone was a sort of seasonal slave - between harvesting and sowing, the population went to work for the state, a kind of tax paid in labour rather than goods.

I think alot of people just assume that ancient slavery was like slavery in the southern US before the Civil War. It was not, it was a completely different phenomena altogether and didn't work anything like that. Slavery did indeed pose problems for ancient civilizations, but in the early period no great power did not practice slavery on a massive scale. It must be remembered at this point in history, there is no industry, no labour-multipliers, and everything was done by labour power unassisted. The Pyramids, the Great Wall of China, etc. Mobilizing free labour on that scale is simply impossible - they may have produced just as much if they were free workers, but it would be production of a different nature.

Eventually slavery posed a problem for Rome, as the institution of slavery led to a number of problems. Slaves, working in numbers together, gave birth to organized mobs. Away from the city, local slaveowner bosses became increasingly powerful and began to dominate the economy, and were able to flex considerable political muscle to the degree they filled the provincial offices and then declared the positions heritable, which had an enormous decentralizing effect (the beginning of feudalism). Slavery in the game should, imho, be represented by a decentralizing effect - a very, very high maintenance cost so that expansion beyond a certain point is curtailed, or stability is threatened if one chooses to expand anyway.

But slavery was, and should be, a must for early civilizations - it enabled them to build their massive monuments and great public works, the likes of which were not seen again until the industrial era. The chief problem is in making slavery translate to a problem for moderately advanced (ie middle ages) civilizations, so they are forced to move to serfdom or the caste system.

this guy knows his history, good post :tu

 

[r_rolo1]

People love to boast the Romans

A small fact: The population of the Roman empire was steadily decreasing since roughly 200 ( basically since the late years of the Antoninus family Caesars ). There is no change in that trend when the Western Empire politically collapsed, as some suggested above.

And about the Pyramids using slave labor.... the only known real intel about that shows that the only confirmed workers in the Mids were free, highly skilled ( and very well fed ) individuals organized in corporations and with frequent family bonds , not unlike the latter European stonemasons. There is not a single evidence of levy or slave work in there.

 

[frekk]

A small fact: The population of the Roman empire was steadily decreasing since roughly 200 ( basically since the late years of the Antoninus family Caesars ). There is no change in that trend when the Western Empire politically collapsed, as some suggested above.

Keep in mind that the Crisis of the Third Century was basically the early beginnings of feudalism. The latifundia system was transforming into the manorial system and a new mode of production was experiencing its birth pains. Diocletian temporarily stalled the process by turning away from republicanism to semi-feudal autocracy, but in the end, the new mode of production simply didn't support such centralized authority. Its natural trend was towards decentralized, localized power in every sense, and that's exactly what happened. Without the central authority, in the early Dark Ages, it was not possible to maintain the institution of slavery and so the servi became serfs, tied to the land by custom, rather than tied to an individual by title of property under Roman law.

And about the Pyramids using slave labor.... the only known real intel about that shows that the only confirmed workers in the Mids were free, highly skilled ( and very well fed ) individuals organized in corporations and with frequent family bonds , not unlike the latter European stonemasons. There is not a single evidence of levy or slave work in there.

You're probably getting this (perhaps indirectly) from Zahi Hawass. Hawass claims - on fairly solid evidence - that the seasonal work projects were festive affairs, rather than harsh toil under the lash, and therefore the classification as 'slavery' promotes a distorted impression. He never claims that they were not levies, because we have many examples of the censuses used to conscript labourers.

 

[r_rolo1]

Keep in mind that the Crisis of the Third Century was basically the early beginnings of feudalism. The latifundia system was transforming into the manorial system and a new mode of production was experiencing its birth pains. Diocletian temporarily stalled the process by turning away from republicanism to semi-feudal autocracy, but in the end, the new mode of production simply didn't support such centralized authority. Its natural trend was towards decentralized, localized power in every sense, and that's exactly what happened. Without the central authority, in the early Dark Ages, it was not possible to maintain the institution of slavery and so the servi became serfs, tied to the land by custom, rather than tied to an individual by title of property under Roman law.

Well, discussing the fall of Roman empire is a sport with lots of fans As one of them , I could say that you're both right and wrong......

IMHO it was not the gradual end of slavery that caused the decrease of population that lead ultimately to feudalism, but the abrupt cut of the commercial security that allowed the high productive monocultural explorations to thrive. If you forced, for a example, the communities of Syria to try to self-produce enough wheat for themselfes along with their costumary Olive exports ( because they could not assure that the wheat would get there if done somewhere else ), the global production would be far lower ( a small thing known nowadays as scale savings ). A forced or self-determined food autocracy in a empire that had more 2 centuries of high production specialization would be a sure heavy hit ( especially if you add the uber-inflation that was grassing the Roman coinage, that discouraged using it as exchange tool and encouraged the famous small treasures ). As the commerce between the various parts of the Mediterranean world was never restored to the level that had during the age of the Antonins, the empire had to seek another way.....

You're probably getting this (perhaps indirectly) from Zahi Hawass. Hawass claims - on fairly solid evidence - that the seasonal work projects were festive affairs, rather than harsh toil under the lash, and therefore the classification as 'slavery' promotes a distorted impression. He never claims that they were not levies, because we have many examples of the censuses used to conscript labourers.

Directly from Hawass . I know that even the more crafted workers only worked there during the flood ( passing the rest of the year in their fields ), making the regime quite alike a levy. But IMHO it looks much more the stonemasons of the European Middle ages than anything else.

Anyway I was just pointing some things that IMHO are misconceptions.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

History shmistory, let's get to playing

 

[frekk]

IMHO it was not the gradual end of slavery that caused the decrease of population that lead ultimately to feudalism, but the abrupt cut of the commercial security that allowed the high productive monocultural explorations to thrive.

This just explains that the transition to feudalism was involuntary; it doesn't really change the characteristics or differences between the two modes of production. The localized production of feudalism had two things going against it in terms of supporting large populations; first, it was much less specialized, so production was less efficient. Second, it had only poor mechanisms for collective labour. The serf, tied to the land, was obviously not a class suited to building infrastructure and public works, except at the local level and in a limited capacity.

 

[jorey]

Some of you guys have too much time on your hands.

Civ 4 is just a game...

 

[r_rolo1]

This just explains that the transition to feudalism was involuntary; it doesn't really change the characteristics or differences between the two modes of production. The localized production of feudalism had two things going against it in terms of supporting large populations; first, it was much less specialized, so production was less efficient. Second, it had only poor mechanisms for collective labour. The serf, tied to the land, was obviously not a class suited to building infrastructure and public works, except at the local level and in a limited capacity.

Well, I wasn't saying that you were wrong I was just making a chronology order change : It wasn't lack of slaves that forced the humiliori->coloni->servi evolution ( like was hinted by others in here), it was simply that the economic system that gave the slave farms an edge disapeard and in those conditions the coloni system ( by coincidence or not, very similar to the hacienda system ) was more competitive.

In resume, IMHO it wasn't the slave question that made the diference between the Roman empire and the High Middle Ages and it definitely does not fully explain the fall of the western Empire.

On topic : historically slaves were almost invariabilly from foreign natios. why not allow slavery only in cities where most of the pop has not the natio of the rulers? That would definitely nerf slavery

 

[frekk]

On topic : historically slaves were almost invariabilly from foreign natios.

What about debt slavery? Most of Rome's slaves were debt slaves, ie not foreigners. Same with Athens.

 

[Dachs]

A small fact: The population of the Roman empire was steadily decreasing since roughly 200 ( basically since the late years of the Antoninus family Caesars ). There is no change in that trend when the Western Empire politically collapsed, as some suggested above.

That's not consistent with the Tchalenko and related data on the productivity of North African, Levantine, and southern Gaul in the fourth and fifth centuries. There are many instances of late classical Roman farms that actually had a small increase in foodstuffs during that time, which was relatively undiminished by Diocletian's abortive (and idiotic) Prices Edict and related taxes.

 

[frekk]

That's not consistent with the Tchalenko and related data on the productivity of North African, Levantine, and southern Gaul in the fourth and fifth centuries. There are many instances of late classical Roman farms that actually had a small increase in foodstuffs during that time, which was relatively undiminished by Diocletian's abortive (and idiotic) Prices Edict and related taxes.

Of course, that's just recovery from the Crisis of the Third Century - which, incidentally, was overcome by Diocletian's reforms. Nowhere to go but up ... but definately nothing close to full recovery. The economy was shattered by the Crisis and full recovery never did happen.

 

[r_rolo1]

There was some local recoveries in a lot of places, but, for a example, in Lusitania ( where I live, so I'm a little more informed ), most cities never recovered to their full strength. A good example is Connimbriga ( one of the more well, preserved roman cities known around here ) where the luxuous villae of the outskirts of the city were hastily disbanded somewhere during the III century to make a wall.... the villae were never recontructed or even constructed over ( they were a place of ruins again pillaged by the inhabitants to rebuild a wall against the Suevi, some centuries later ).

 

[Genv [FP]]

I don't understand why people dislike the slavery civic. It makes the game at the beginning fun, so you don't have to wait 60 turns to build a frickin library.